Periodic Table of Swearing

[Badger3k]

Big trouble in my neck of the woods...

'Around the 13th of September 2012. Freethoughtblogs posted this article , referring to a comments by a commentariat member named 'trinioler' also know as Justin Trinioler, Scribe for the A+ movement. http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... oler-said/

At the time I did not know that it referred to us. Through some odd circumstances I found out own Zena Ryder recently responded to said article, so I can only guess that it is about our local CFI. http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -responds/

So I did a little google-fu and with some backchannel help I found out who 'trinioler' is...our very own Tyler Liang. In this link you will find Tyler's connected with 'trinioler' in the email address. The google search for 'trinolier' only turns up two pages of results, a pittance by google standards. I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to think the two are somehow connected. http://osdir.com/ml/python-pygame/2009-10/msg00020.html

How does everyone feel about being blatantly misrepresented like that? Unfortunately, I am not surprised a such underhanded tactics.'

This little shit has been manufacturing non-troversy for over a year. I am stoked to finally catch him in the act. He has been outed. Booyah!

We get blamed for everything. I wouldn't be surprised if they accuse us of the Libyan attack, the bombing of the World Trade Center, and even the crusades (bet you thought I'd go for the Holocaust - well, Ophie might). Who is Tyler Lang, and why should we care what he does? He doesn't represent anyone here, I mean - if he did something shitty, then bad on him, but we don't even need anything to happen to get blamed. Aunt Ophie will go to the grave screaming about MRAs and kicks to the cunt, and will continue to do so even if we were completely vindicated in the eyes of everyone else. I didn't read any of the links, so I can't make any comment on what this kid did. I did see Ophies post, and if he did anything with CFI I could care less - they don't represent me or want atheists like myself in their organization, so I return the favor by ignoring them.

Sorry if this seems a bit short - I'm currently feeling lousy and in the can thanks to (I hope) switching meds for my acid reflux, debating if I need to use yet another sick day and push my test review (and test) back a day for my kids.

[Badger3k]

No ETA, but if he did do something horrible and you did catch him at it, then I do have to say good job on that. Don't count on getting any accolades from the FftBunch, although if you post stuff here, they are guaranteed to get the info - unless they got it from you already, that is.

[masakari2012]

[youtube]L_1WzR9zBm8[/youtube]

[Spence]

mickeycheese.gif

And all this time I thought it had something to do with bacterias and gases. They must hire mice of varying sizes.

And where in the world is the best place to find cheesy bacteria?

(OMFG I can't believe I just said that. I feel sick now :puke-huge: )

[windy]

I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to think the two are somehow connected.

Sounds like a dishonest little ass, but why do you need to post his (suspected) real name for that? That's FfTB crap.

Looks like the cat is out of the bag anyway despite the attempts to edit out the group's name from B&W...

[Spence]

This little shit has been manufacturing non-troversy for over a year. I am stoked to finally catch him in the act. He has been outed. Booyah!

The weird thing is that Benson's post that you linked to (here) complains that the community has divided in a way that she didn't want to happen, and that is somehow proof that the divisiveness of the baboons was necessary. (Oh and of course blames the slymepit for it all, while at the same time calling for more divisiveness)

Guess that must be something to do with the parallel logic she's been smoking.

[Steersman]

Big trouble in my neck of the woods...

'Around the 13th of September 2012. Freethoughtblogs posted this article , referring to a comments by a commentariat member named 'trinioler' also know as Justin Trinioler, Scribe for the A+ movement. http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... oler-said/

At the time I did not know that it referred to us. Through some odd circumstances I found out own Zena Ryder recently responded to said article, so I can only guess that it is about our local CFI. http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -responds/ ....

Not quite sure that it was a wise idea to have outed trinioler- assuming that that is the case, particularly considering the flack that Justin Vacula took just for posting Surly Amy’s address.

How does everyone feel about being blatantly misrepresented like that? Unfortunately, I am not surprised a such underhanded tactics.'

Not quite sure what you’re referring to there with that “blatantly misrepresented”, but maybe it’s related to this post by notanasshole:

Let’s refresh our memories about what, exactly, “trinioler said”.

Okay, so, people believe that the slyme pitters are just trolls on “the internet”. Well, disabuse yourselves of that notion.

Apart from being a little obscure – are all of the “slyme pitters” engaged in nefarious, fifth-column activities in other spheres of influence? – was that some sort of accusation that one of those spheres included that CFI branch which was being subjected to a full-court press of harassment by the entire brigade of said pitters? [How come I didn’t get an invitation?]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I think, although I might be mistaken, that Mr Danksworth was quoting someone. There are those apostrophes at the beginning and end of the chapter.

A little aside: I think Franc may have to call Randi and collect his prize. Prescience from February 2011:

http://greylining.com/2011/02/21/the-ag ... coherence/

[Steersman]

I think, although I might be mistaken, that Mr Danksworth was quoting someone. There are those apostrophes at the beginning and end of the chapter.

A little aside: I think Franc may have to call Randi and collect his prize. Prescience from February 2011:

http://greylining.com/2011/02/21/the-ag ... coherence/

Was certainly a little vague as to who he was quoting if that was the case. And there was no source provided.

Interesting article by franc, this in particular leaping out at me:

Nor do I think Plait ever considered that in the space of 31 minutes and 7 seconds he effectively undid what precious little was left of the great Age of Enlightenment Freethought / Humanist legacy. In one swoop, the new paradigm became that:

• yes, people do have the right to not be offended,
  yes, people do have the right to expect that you will curtail your language and temper your opinions for the sake of their precious and sacrosanct “feelings”, and
  conversely, you have forfeited all of your rights to demand outrageous statements be supported by empirical

evidence if it’s going to upset anyone.

Though one might point out that franc was somewhat reluctant to provide evidence for his claim about Watson’s “minutes” comment ...

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

*snip*

Though one might point out that franc was somewhat reluctant to provide evidence for his claim about Watson’s “minutes” comment ...

Maybe this could be of some help? I will have to go back up the thread to be sure what you are talking about. Please keep in mind that you are on Franc's ignore list, so he may not read your requests for evidence.

http://greylining.com/2011/09/27/rebecc ... d-galileo/

[Steersman]

*snip*

Though one might point out that franc was somewhat reluctant to provide evidence for his claim about Watson’s “minutes” comment ...

Maybe this could be of some help? I will have to go back up the thread to be sure what you are talking about. Please keep in mind that you are on Franc's ignore list, so he may not read your requests for evidence.

http://greylining.com/2011/09/27/rebecc ... d-galileo/

Thanks for the link to the other Grey Lining post. However still doesn’t look like a smoking gun to me. The upload date on the YouTube video in Watson’s post [September 29, 2011] shows September 9, 2011, but I can’t view it at the moment [have to install a newer version of Flash Player and running out of time] so I can’t determine whether she might have actually changed it “within minutes” as she is claiming and as franc is disputing ...

Though I wasn’t really expecting much of a response from him – it was just a bit of a friendly needle aimed in his direction ... :-)

But time to call it a day; night all ...

[franc]

*snip*

Though one might point out that franc was somewhat reluctant to provide evidence for his claim about Watson’s “minutes” comment ...

Maybe this could be of some help? I will have to go back up the thread to be sure what you are talking about. Please keep in mind that you are on Franc's ignore list, so he may not read your requests for evidence.

http://greylining.com/2011/09/27/rebecc ... d-galileo/

He can do what everyone else here does - pull his fucking finger out and look up the fucking evidence himself instead of waiting for it to be hand delivered on a silver spoon. Not like any of it is secret or hard to find.

Beyond belief that this peabrain presents blogs from Skepchick as "evidence".

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

What I remember is we all had a few good laughs about the Galileo stuff for a couple of weeks before the retraction came out. Investigating the ERV archives might help solve the "issue", but personaly, I don't give a flying rat's ass.

[guest]

What I remember is we all had a few good laughs about the Galileo stuff for a couple of weeks before the retraction came out. Investigating the ERV archives might help solve the "issue", but personaly, I don't give a flying rat's ass.

It's all a bit of nonsense anyway.
Who the hell seriously believes that Rebecca Watson is any sort of expert on religion or science. She is bound to get things wrong. She is also stubborn and arrogant and will try to avoid giving the impression that she is fallible - but she's hardly the only one like this, it's common across the skeptical community, on both sides (although one would have to admit a certain concentration of it eminating from the Minessota mafia - Peezus, Laden and Svan).
Move on and look for something serious to get worked up about.

[franc]

What I remember is we all had a few good laughs about the Galileo stuff for a couple of weeks before the retraction came out. Investigating the ERV archives might help solve the "issue", but personaly, I don't give a flying rat's ass.

It did take weeks. And the admission of error was only made grudgingly as a last resort. But of course that's all a big fat lie - the real truth is what Steersman presented here: the Skepchick blog version, which is guaranteed truthful, error free, never based on anecdote and so unquestionable that getting a second reference to support it is only for losers (and also insulting to people's intelligence).

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

What I remember is we all had a few good laughs about the Galileo stuff for a couple of weeks before the retraction came out. Investigating the ERV archives might help solve the "issue", but personaly, I don't give a flying rat's ass.

It's all a bit of nonsense anyway.
Who the hell seriously believes that Rebecca Watson is any sort of expert on religion or science. She is bound to get things wrong. She is also stubborn and arrogant and will try to avoid giving the impression that she is fallible - but she's hardly the only one like this, it's common across the skeptical community, on both sides (although one would have to admit a certain concentration of it eminating from the Minessota mafia - Peezus, Laden and Svan).
Move on and look for something serious to get worked up about.

For me, she's been flying off the radar for sometime. It was just a bit annoying to have this brought up when I was only linking to one of Franc's blogposts.

Franc: it does reek a bit of religion. Going for evidence about Skepchick by linking to Skepchick is like saying the bible is the inherent word of god because the bible says so. Multiple sources, cross-references...etc, that's what I like.

[Scented Nectar]

mickeycheese.gif

And all this time I thought it had something to do with bacterias and gases. They must hire mice of varying sizes.

And where in the world is the best place to find cheesy bacteria?

(OMFG I can't believe I just said that. I feel sick now :puke-huge: )

I've always been complimented on, and rather proud of, my particular bacterial eco-system. I would like a cheese made and named after me. Scentednectar pizzas, grilled cheese sandwiches, cheese omelets, they would all be gourmet, if I may brag. :lol:

[DownThunder]

Ok, I think thats enough slymepit for me today.

[AnonymousCowherd]

What I remember is we all had a few good laughs about the Galileo stuff for a couple of weeks before the retraction came out. Investigating the ERV archives might help solve the "issue", but personaly, I don't give a flying rat's ass.

IIRC it took at least 20,160 minutes for the retraction to appear. So, yes, minutes. In fact, seconds! 1,209,600 of 'em.

[AnonymousCowherd]

What I remember is we all had a few good laughs about the Galileo stuff for a couple of weeks before the retraction came out. Investigating the ERV archives might help solve the "issue", but personaly, I don't give a flying rat's ass.

It's all a bit of nonsense anyway.
Who the hell seriously believes that Rebecca Watson is any sort of expert on religion or science. She is bound to get things wrong. She is also stubborn and arrogant and will try to avoid giving the impression that she is fallible - but she's hardly the only one like this, it's common across the skeptical community, on both sides (although one would have to admit a certain concentration of it eminating from the Minessota mafia - Peezus, Laden and Svan).
Move on and look for something serious to get worked up about.

It's not just making errors that 'Becca is being chided for. It's portraying yourself as being a professional communicator of science and skeptical ideas, making a (clearly not very well) prepared statement (not "shooting from the lip") that contained a bloomer, refusing to admit it until pressed, and trying to shift the chorus of criticism onto those pointing out the error. It's not professional, it's not skeptical, it's not even an adult way to behave.

But it obviously works. It's 'Becca that's dining out on all the crap she peddles, not the critics. That says something about her audience as well, so if 'Becca is part of something, count me out.

Yes, 'Becca is atheism-lite, skepticism-lite, science-xlite. You might say that, with Watson, everything is elementary. But someone is paying her way, and that's one definition of taking something "seriously".

[AnonymousCowherd]

And she apparently corrected the mistake about Galileo “within minutes” of having posted the offending YouTube video.

She may well have more than a few “sins” to “atone” for, but making mountains out of molehills doesn’t seem to reflect terribly well on those doing so. Particularly in comparison to some of the rather more egregious cases in this neck of the woods, notably WoolyBumblebee’s plagiarism ....

The time to correct this is minutes before posting it (or otherwise making a public goose of yourself), not later, after your friends point out that you've made a huge floater.

So. You’re infallible then and never make any mistakes? Cool – sounds like a real privilege. But a great many of the rest of us have to kind of shoot from the hip now and again and then correct our aims afterwards through apologies and the like ....

And what the hell do Wooly's actions have to do with Becky's?

“People who live in glass houses ....”; “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam [log] that is in thine own eye?” ....

OK. I'm calling "Poe".

He's the fourth Stooge, right? Or is that Iggy?

[Geoffrey Falk]

Googling rebecca watson galileo executed brings up this, currently on the second page of results:

http://i49.tinypic.com/2di0g8j.png

The link there leads to this:



http://i48.tinypic.com/34s2ctv.png

Note that the timestamp on that Tweet is September 9, 2011--the same date as Watson uploaded the original video:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2vxod2p.png

There was some discussion on the relevant post at Skepchick (involving JCW) about whether or not the flag added to that video at the 3:13 mark would show up when the video was embedded--possibly a bug which YouTube has since fixed:

http://i48.tinypic.com/k0q3xt.png

Finally, Justicar's excerpt from Watson's video was posted on his blog on September 25.

[Dick Strawkins]

What I remember is we all had a few good laughs about the Galileo stuff for a couple of weeks before the retraction came out. Investigating the ERV archives might help solve the "issue", but personaly, I don't give a flying rat's ass.

It's all a bit of nonsense anyway.
Who the hell seriously believes that Rebecca Watson is any sort of expert on religion or science. She is bound to get things wrong. She is also stubborn and arrogant and will try to avoid giving the impression that she is fallible - but she's hardly the only one like this, it's common across the skeptical community, on both sides (although one would have to admit a certain concentration of it eminating from the Minessota mafia - Peezus, Laden and Svan).
Move on and look for something serious to get worked up about.

It's not just making errors that 'Becca is being chided for. It's portraying yourself as being a professional communicator of science and skeptical ideas, making a (clearly not very well) prepared statement (not "shooting from the lip") that contained a bloomer, refusing to admit it until pressed, and trying to shift the chorus of criticism onto those pointing out the error. It's not professional, it's not skeptical, it's not even an adult way to behave.

But it obviously works. It's 'Becca that's dining out on all the crap she peddles, not the critics. That says something about her audience as well, so if 'Becca is part of something, count me out.

Yes, 'Becca is atheism-lite, skepticism-lite, science-xlite. You might say that, with Watson, everything is elementary. But someone is paying her way, and that's one definition of taking something "seriously".

I think even Watson herself finally realizes that she doesn't cut it as a communicator of science. She simply doesn't have the expertise or the dedication to boning up on the facts that such a role requires.
That's why she's switched focus to becoming a 'skeptical feminist' (in this case meaning a skepchick who professes to be a feminist, rather than someone who actually uses the tools of skepticism on the subject of feminism and its many non-complementary strands.)

I also agree with your assessment of where the problem really lies - the community that is willing to put up with this farce.
Where the hell is the skepticism in the skeptical community. It is celebrity culture writ pathetic.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I respectfuly stand corrected, then.

[AnonymousCowherd]

I respectfuly stand corrected, then.

Not by me, Phil.

[BarnOwl]

I think even Watson herself finally realizes that she doesn't cut it as a communicator of science. She simply doesn't have the expertise or the dedication to boning up on the facts that such a role requires.
That's why she's switched focus to becoming a 'skeptical feminist' (in this case meaning a skepchick who professes to be a feminist, rather than someone who actually uses the tools of skepticism on the subject of feminism and its many non-complementary strands.)

I also agree with your assessment of where the problem really lies - the community that is willing to put up with this farce.
Where the hell is the skepticism in the skeptical community. It is celebrity culture writ pathetic.

This last part leaves me gobsmacked - where are the skepticism and the critical thinking in the skeptical community? It's not just Watson who is dining out and having her way paid ... it's the same list of celebrities speaking at the same circuit of meetings year after year. No way will I bother to attend one, even if it's within driving distance.

Switching focus to becoming a "skeptical feminist" is Watson's current strategy, and note that there are other strategies among the A+theists. Myers has never had an environmentalism/ecology focus on his blog, but now that "environmental activism" is part of A+, he brings in a co-blogger so he can boost the post counts in the environmentalism and ecology categories, without having to research or write anything on the topics himself. Then when he flies around the globe to be wined and dined at all those skepticism/atheism conventions, he can pretend to be all on board with environmental issues [/ironic]. Not that environmental concerns have ever been a focus or even a side topic at such conferences before (nor should they have been) ... but you can bet they'll pop up now with the Aplussers on the speakers' lists. I also harbor suspicions that there's some personal resentment behind the very recent inclusion of environmentalism posts, but I'll keep those to myself. :whistle:

[Dick Strawkins]

There is virtually nothing that an atheist organization can do to make a significant effect on environmentalism - particularly if your aim is to effect political movement towards mitigating climate change.
Chris Mooney saw this years ago when he broke away from his previous outspoken atheist views to become a much more religion friendly - the idea being to use moderate religious people to come on board with the consensus climate science.
The accomodationist policy of Mooney has failed so far, and that is with it being tailored exactly for the mainstream democrat market.
Aplus is pretty much in Marcotte territory - and as such it's completely politically toxic for even the most moderate democrats.
I get the impression that Myers environmentalism is really just another excuse to disparage libertarian atheists - who tend to be more skeptical of both climate science (Penn) and government intervention (Shermer.)

[Spence]

Re: Watson on Galileo, her note on the video is not much better. "he wasn't executed, just condemned".

Ermm, he was tried by the inquisition, found guilty of heresy, to avoid a more severe penalty he was forced to denounce his own opinion, and in doing so he got the lesser sentence of house arrest for the rest of his life.

That's not execution (mind you, execution IS a doddle) but it is a bit more than being "just condemned". So even after being told she was wrong she was still too lazy to spend a few seconds googling to find out the historical evidence, and just wrote some other shit.

Given how much uncle PeeZus loves following the fact-checkers, it's a good job none of them are pointing at him and his friends, eh?

[AnonymousCowherd]

I think even Watson herself finally realizes that she doesn't cut it as a communicator of science. She simply doesn't have the expertise or the dedication to boning up on the facts that such a role requires.
That's why she's switched focus to becoming a 'skeptical feminist' (in this case meaning a skepchick who professes to be a feminist, rather than someone who actually uses the tools of skepticism on the subject of feminism and its many non-complementary strands.)

I also agree with your assessment of where the problem really lies - the community that is willing to put up with this farce.
Where the hell is the skepticism in the skeptical community. It is celebrity culture writ pathetic.

Yes!

I think it was Dilurk who has already posted a link to a blog post by Ethan Clow at Skeptic North somewhere upthread, so I won't do so again.

Clow explains what a spiffing wheeze The Enlightenment was and goes on to suggest that A+theism is a Good Thing because it will bring more divers views to the Skeptic Movement, and make it just like the Enlightnement all over again, only better. He then goes on to swill the kool-aid like a half full spitoon but, leaving that aside, he makes the classic mistake of people who want to expand social movements. To borrow an analogy from LBJ, if you have more people in the tent, they don't all piss out of it instead of pissing in, they spend most of their time pissing on each other. It will always be so as long as there is profit to be made from internal stirring and intrigue, and the kind of merchants, such as 'Becca, who will take cynical advantage of it. When the fad passes, they move on.

The Enlightenment "worked" because it was a climate of opinion, not a "movement", because people were prepared to risk censorship, imprisonment, exile, even death for new ideas, because science and technology were begining to erode the existing social order and, overwhelmingly, because it was an idea whose time had come. (Which, Citizen Clow, did not happen at 2.31 on Tuesday at 'Becca's place, it took the thick end of a century, across half a continent).

A+theism/skepticism etc etc may want to compare themselves to the Enlightenment but where is the Locke, the Montesque, the Newton, the Voltaire? Instead we get windbags like PZ, 'Becca, Ophelia Knee etc. As you say, pathetic.

FWIW I don't think the new Enlightenment's hour is come round at last. The best we can do is keep the place lit while that rough beast slouches our way.

[franc]

The Enlightenment "worked" because it was a climate of opinion, not a "movement", because people were prepared to risk censorship, imprisonment, exile, even death for new ideas, because science and technology were begining to erode the existing social order and, overwhelmingly, because it was an idea whose time had come. (Which, Citizen Clow, did not happen at 2.31 on Tuesday at 'Becca's place, it took the thick end of a century, across half a continent).

In the Enlightenment everything was fair game. Could you imagine what Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot et al. would have made of the baboons? My guess is mince meat. If the Enlightenment were to be defined by a word, it would be parrhesia - complete free speech, brutal, honest and fearless. Speech that slaughtered sacred cows and defiled the remains. No "safe spaces" or sheltered workshops. No crutches, no support groups. Everything was a target to be stripped bare and dissected - if it could not support its own weight it was nonsense and was treated as such. The baboons are anti-enlightenment, as I have pointed out before.

[ERV]

lol.

Women, I think, are socially conditioned...

No degree/work experience in sociology or psychology.

She began working with skeptics like James Randi

Who now want nothing to do with her due to her anti-social, opportunistic behavior.

"I got involved with them and liked what they were doing, but I saw most of the skeptics who were on stages at skeptical events and speaking about skeptical issues were mostly men, and I realized that there were a lot of issues that directly affected women that weren't being addressed," Watson recalls.

Translation: "I saw a market niche I could exploit for personal gain. And boy did I!"

For Watson, one of the most concerning issues of pseudoscience that she and her team at Skepchick investigate is vaccinations.

No degree/work experience in science of any kind, certainly not medicine, virology, immunology, microbiology, biochemistry.

Behind some of the concern are celebrities like Jenny McCarthy...

Functionally repeating information she is told from sources she trusts, much like Jenny McCarthy.

Watson also targets The Secret, a book teaching people that if they want something, all they need to do is act like they already have it, and the universe will manifest their wishes.

Apparently it works. If you act like you are an atheist leader (who doesnt actually do anything), a sociologist (who doesnt actually know anything about sociology), a scientist (who doesnt actually know anything about science), a feminist (while actively doing things that harm women), apparently it all comes true. How else would Watson get a speaking gig on these topics?

"It's the worst and they just came out with another one in the last year called The Power. It's the exact same thing. They're like, 'How do we sell another million dollars of books to people? We'll do the exact same thing with a different title.'"

Kinda like how every month or so, Watson et ass hatch a new scheme to con money out of 'skeptics' (see T-shirts above). Except when they do it, THAT is a legitimate business.

Watson says the cosmetic industry has become one that feeds women's insecurities...

Again, Watson has literally zero scientific training. Sure, the cosmetic industry might be selling woo, but Watson has no capacity for judging the scientific merits of their claims.

"Douches are these actually quite harmful products that women are encouraged to shoot up into themselves and basically fire-bomb their vaginas,"

Who encourages 'douche' use? Physicians dont. Advertisers dont (they wont even use the word in advertising). If anything, the use is cultural, and dependent on age. I mean I know of literally no one who has ever purchased or used a 'douche' product. No one. Certainly no one is 'encouraging' me to do it. Hell, in the generic 'womens' magazines like Cosmo and Shape and such, which are normally rife with woo, they not only do not encourage douche use, they actively tell women not to do it. Thats 'women are encouraged to shoot up blah blah'?

But its low hanging fruit, I suppose, and thats all Watson can reach.

By exposing pseudoscience to women, Watson hopes she is able to show them it is OK to stand up for themselves and realize they are capable of logic and critical thinking, something women have been conditioned to disregard in past generations.

Again, Watson has no sociology/psychology training. Women have been 'conditioned' to disregard logic and critical thinking? Why learn things in school when you can make things up?

women can pursue the professions that they want to pursue regardless of gender.

Women *can* pursue the professions that they want to pursue regardless of gender, at least in the US where Watson lives and in Canada where she is speaking.

But of course, Watson is uninterested in the needs of women who live in places who DO need help pursuing the professions that they want to pursue, cause they sure as hell dont give a shit about Jenny McCarthy or The Secret.

[astrokid.nj]

LOL indeed. I actually had no idea what "douche" even meant until I came across this baboon talking about it.. and I took her at face value, assuming that its indeed a problem.

"Women, I think, are socially conditioned to not be confrontational, to not tell people that something is bullshit, and at the same time, they've been socially conditioned to be mothering and compassionate and to focus on helping others above all else," says Watson

Even if we assume this bullshit narrative to be true.. what do the baboons want to happen? "safe spaces".. one reason being that they can avoid confrontation. what did the crazy bitch do in the elevator? Avoid confrontation.
And then they have fans. :suimouth:

Watson_Appreciation.jpg

(15.52 KiB) Downloaded 268 times

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I remember my first week in Florida, when I asked if I could take a douche*. Laughter ensued...






*Shower in French

[JAB]

The Peach wades in on A+

[youtube]lLHhSw6z8gc[/youtube]

[StueNever]

Phewf glad I don't like in Edmonton anymore.

[cunt]

Basically Watson likes to go on about douche's because it's an acceptable insult to her. Its acceptable as an insult because douches are harmful to women. Paradoxically this means it'd be less offensive to walk up and call some stranger a douche than it is to call your friend a cunt. Because of reasons.

[Tigzy]

Watson also targets The Secret, a book teaching people that if they want something, all they need to do is act like they already have it, and the universe will manifest their wishes.

Apparently it works. If you act like you are an atheist leader (who doesnt actually do anything), a sociologist (who doesnt actually know anything about sociology), a scientist (who doesnt actually know anything about science), a feminist (while actively doing things that harm women), apparently it all comes true. How else would Watson get a speaking gig on these topics?

:lol: That deserves an internets or two!

[Munkhaus]

Talking of sexism and such; I work in an office that is perhaps 96% birds. This week an email circulated among them containing a series of pictures of nude men. "This one's a nice body, forget about the face."
They were literally covering up the faces with a hand on the monitor.
Naturally I created a scene: " We are human beings with agency!" I cried, rushing hither and (way) over thither, sweeping monitors to the floor and stamping the digital depictions of unattainable perfection that the matriarchy uses to silence real men into so many pieces of compu-meat. "And I'm not referring to a modeling agency!"
Of course I did no such thing; I gave no shits. Yet... what had passed seems impossible still! Women objectifying the male body... what crepuscular zone is this in which I live and work?!
Anyway, big love to you all... lots of banking/post office for me at the mo. If anyone has a spare life, I'm trying to get one.
Ps Someone posted a video of Jen's "talk" earlier... I made it to about minute 13. Horrific propaganda, poorly pronounced.
Chris Morris and Nathan Barley posters: kudos. I posted that shit last year, just so we know, that I'm an old timer. Been around the block.
What else? See, there's loads of stuff I think of ( I only generally read this during my fag breaks) but by the time I think of posting there's 15 new pages and "we've" moved on. Did anyone snag Iszi Lawrence ( or whatever her name is) saying she calls Watson a cunt in jest and it's cool boots?
Lastly, Phil, get your spare room ready... I'm coming to stay for a couple of years. Last time I was in Nice I was kicked awake (sur la plage) by the SJS? "Allez-oop!" they said. Fascists.
X

[bhoytony]

Talking of sexism and such; I work in an office that is perhaps 96% birds.

Birds?...BIRDS? OPPRESSOR OF WOMYN!

[AKAHorace]

Munkhaus,

good to see you here again. Working on getting Colombiana to Canada, went back recently for a bit. Wife to be
is confident about dealing with Canadian weather on basis of time spent in Bogota.

BTW have you seen the latest term of abuse for slymepitters/non A+ atheists ? We are hyperskeptics.

To disbelieve in God is skepticism, to doubt PZ Myers is hyperskepticism.

[BarnOwl]

Splurged on a wee jar of Marmite today (I'm going to have to get my UK friends to send me some in a proper-sized jar next time), so the Marmite and rice cakes are on me this week.

Fortunately, a little bit goes a long way. Brought to you by Marmite, the official yeast extract of the SlymePit.

[Gumby]

Some humor from the ever-awesome Paula Kirby today:

http://i46.tinypic.com/2gx1nup.jpg

[Tigzy]

Splurged on a wee jar of Marmite today (I'm going to have to get my UK friends to send me some in a proper-sized jar next time), so the Marmite and rice cakes are on me this week.

Fortunately, a little bit goes a long way. Brought to you by Marmite, the official yeast extract of the SlymePit.

Marmite had a small but noble role in the last UK general election, when it helped make the BNP look even more ridiculous than usual.

Cue plenty of quips concerning Marmite being disliked by Griffin and his ilk cos it's black.

(though as one wag pointed out - if you beat Marmite long enough, it turns white. :shock: )

[dustbubble]

Obviously, he's just more of the same and the "he's here because I want to focus on the environment" was meaningless

<miserable old scotchman mode>
In that case, I think I oughtta go to work. Time to start needling the "limited" wee can't on The Environment.
Aye, how?
I bet even I could pull hiz drawers doon on that, and I burn three ton of coal a year minimum, and (pokes trip computer; och away and shite! fucken 1100 keys in the last three days in diesel alone, mind you it's been a bad week altogether. Gideon, any time you like, son, ye can bribe me into early retirement <holds breath>)
</auld hoor>

I recycle my bottles,though but.

[cunt]

Oh yeah. Marmite because you either love or hate the BNP. You can't just pity the irrelevant twats.

[cunt]

Alright, fuck skepchick. I can't even pay it attention at all. It kills far too many braincells.

http://skepchick.org/2012/09/ai-all-thi ... -bullshit/

Last week, Maria wrote a post titled “Things to do When the Internet Makes You Crazy“.

Then we got a commenter who pointed out that “crazy” isn’t a very nice term, that it’s ableist and belittling to people who suffer from mental illness. Maria changed the word “crazy” in the title to “enraged”. But the comment sparked a lot of discussion behind the scenes over PC-ness of terms and whether the nuance of language makes it more or less acceptable to use words that others object to. And whether every instance of “un-PCness” is fair.

We discussed whether certain terms are really worthy of extra thought and care. Who can reclaim a term. When terms can and cannot be reclaimed.

In the end it was a really interesting discussion, and I’d like to think I came away as a more compassionate person. That maybe, if someone tells me that a term hurts them, I don’t get to decide whether or not I’m actually hurting them. I know they’re hurt. My only decision is whether or not I want to keep hurting them or not. Usually, the answer is no.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Alright, fuck skepchick. I can't even pay it attention at all. It kills far too many braincells.

http://skepchick.org/2012/09/ai-all-thi ... -bullshit/

Last week, Maria wrote a post titled “Things to do When the Internet Makes You Crazy“.

Then we got a commenter who pointed out that “crazy” isn’t a very nice term, that it’s ableist and belittling to people who suffer from mental illness. Maria changed the word “crazy” in the title to “enraged”. But the comment sparked a lot of discussion behind the scenes over PC-ness of terms and whether the nuance of language makes it more or less acceptable to use words that others object to. And whether every instance of “un-PCness” is fair.

We discussed whether certain terms are really worthy of extra thought and care. Who can reclaim a term. When terms can and cannot be reclaimed.

In the end it was a really interesting discussion, and I’d like to think I came away as a more compassionate person. That maybe, if someone tells me that a term hurts them, I don’t get to decide whether or not I’m actually hurting them. I know they’re hurt. My only decision is whether or not I want to keep hurting them or not. Usually, the answer is no.

Just off to tear up the crazy paving in my garden. After that I'll calm myself down with a nice game of enraged golf.

[Gumby]

Alright, fuck skepchick. I can't even pay it attention at all. It kills far too many braincells.

http://skepchick.org/2012/09/ai-all-thi ... -bullshit/

Last week, Maria wrote a post titled “Things to do When the Internet Makes You Crazy“.

Then we got a commenter who pointed out that “crazy” isn’t a very nice term, that it’s ableist and belittling to people who suffer from mental illness. Maria changed the word “crazy” in the title to “enraged”. But the comment sparked a lot of discussion behind the scenes over PC-ness of terms and whether the nuance of language makes it more or less acceptable to use words that others object to. And whether every instance of “un-PCness” is fair.

We discussed whether certain terms are really worthy of extra thought and care. Who can reclaim a term. When terms can and cannot be reclaimed.

In the end it was a really interesting discussion, and I’d like to think I came away as a more compassionate person. That maybe, if someone tells me that a term hurts them, I don’t get to decide whether or not I’m actually hurting them. I know they’re hurt. My only decision is whether or not I want to keep hurting them or not. Usually, the answer is no.

These people are so concerned about words possibly offending someone. Unless of course they're calling people douchebags, delusional fuckwits, assholes, liars, trolls, rapists, scumbags, and the like. You're right, fuck'em. They're all a bunch of emotionally and intellectually challenged dissonance-bags.

[Saint N.]

"I got involved with them and liked what they were doing, but I saw most of the skeptics who were on stages at skeptical events and speaking about skeptical issues were mostly men, and I realized that there were a lot of issues that directly affected women that weren't being addressed."

Okay...

For Watson, one of the most concerning issues of pseudoscience that she and her team at Skepchick investigate is vaccinations.

How is this an issue that wasn't being addressed by the predominantly male skeptic's community before skepchick showed up? I can remember watching the likes of Michael Shermer and James Randi debunking anti-vaxers way back in the 90s, when those people first started making noise about the "evils" of vaccines. What unique view did watson or skepchick add to the discussion that wasn't there before? (p.s. it's a rhetorical question meant to point out the obvious. sarcasm is hard to do online sometimes)

http://i46.tinypic.com/2gx1nup.jpg

:lol: :clap:

[Steersman]

Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:54 am

Googling rebecca watson galileo executed brings up this, currently on the second page of results:
....
The link there leads to this ....

Note that the timestamp on that Tweet is September 9, 2011-- the same date as Watson uploaded the original video ...

Thanks for the information, for a few suggestions on searching, and for justifying my criticisms of franc’s claims – even if that justification was accompanied by a left-handed compliment.

But I wonder now whether franc will also have the balls to “stand corrected”, to retract this statement of his:

She did not correct it in "minutes" - but after a few weeks of laughter as the community slowly discovered her mindless, uneducated, ill-read stupidity. She eventually owned up to being an abject moron, because it could no longer be dismissed or laughed off, and only then corrected it - then blogged about how "cruel" people like us are and how much we exaggerate to pick on her over trivia. She added that she corrected "minutes" later precisely for uncritical, propaganda eating buffoons like you.

Rather difficult to do otherwise, particularly in light of your own forthright rejection of its credibility:

There are a lot of things about Rebecca Watson that you can legitimately find deep and profound fault with. But claiming that she is guilty of “refusing to admit [the error in her false statement about Galileo] until pressed” isn’t one of them. ....

No, just admit it: The evidence is overwhelming that Watson is telling the truth on this one point. Maybe it didn’t take literally ten minutes for her to put that annotation into the video, but it almost certainly took less than ten hours, with no documented “pressuring” of her to cause her to do that.

[Guest]

Alright, fuck skepchick. I can't even pay it attention at all. It kills far too many braincells.

http://skepchick.org/2012/09/ai-all-thi ... -bullshit/

Last week, Maria wrote a post titled “Things to do When the Internet Makes You Crazy“.

Then we got a commenter who pointed out that “crazy” isn’t a very nice term, that it’s ableist and belittling to people who suffer from mental illness. Maria changed the word “crazy” in the title to “enraged”. But the comment sparked a lot of discussion behind the scenes over PC-ness of terms and whether the nuance of language makes it more or less acceptable to use words that others object to. And whether every instance of “un-PCness” is fair.

We discussed whether certain terms are really worthy of extra thought and care. Who can reclaim a term. When terms can and cannot be reclaimed.

In the end it was a really interesting discussion, and I’d like to think I came away as a more compassionate person. That maybe, if someone tells me that a term hurts them, I don’t get to decide whether or not I’m actually hurting them. I know they’re hurt. My only decision is whether or not I want to keep hurting them or not. Usually, the answer is no.

What a bunch of wankers. This kind of shit is really going to save the world?

[Tigzy]

Alright, fuck skepchick. I can't even pay it attention at all. It kills far too many braincells.

http://skepchick.org/2012/09/ai-all-thi ... -bullshit/

Last week, Maria wrote a post titled “Things to do When the Internet Makes You Crazy“.

Then we got a commenter who pointed out that “crazy” isn’t a very nice term, that it’s ableist and belittling to people who suffer from mental illness. Maria changed the word “crazy” in the title to “enraged”. But the comment sparked a lot of discussion behind the scenes over PC-ness of terms and whether the nuance of language makes it more or less acceptable to use words that others object to. And whether every instance of “un-PCness” is fair.

We discussed whether certain terms are really worthy of extra thought and care. Who can reclaim a term. When terms can and cannot be reclaimed.

In the end it was a really interesting discussion, and I’d like to think I came away as a more compassionate person. That maybe, if someone tells me that a term hurts them, I don’t get to decide whether or not I’m actually hurting them. I know they’re hurt. My only decision is whether or not I want to keep hurting them or not. Usually, the answer is no.

Ah, FFS! Okay, I won't use 'crazy' in determining the nature of this post - instead, I'll happily conclude it's UTTERLY FREAKIN MENTAL!

It's not as if the mentals care that much anyway, what with too busy being Napoleon, Jesus, smearing themselves with their own shit or moderating the A+ forum. And if any do get offended, I'll just say it wasn't me, it was the voices that said it.

[Tigzy]

Regarding Becky's 'Galileo executed by the Church' vid - I just love the fact that a moment before she utters those foolish words, she says, 'Christians, can you stop just saying stupid things like that?' :lol:

Personally, I couldn't give a shit where she corrected her mistake nine minutes, hours or days after - it's not so much that she was in possession of something she felt was a fact but wasn't, but that she blithely - hubristically, even - decided to share that misbegotten factoid to a large audience without double-checking first. Now, this wouldn't really matter if it was just some nobody on the internet; but this is someone who wants to be taken seriously as a leading player in the skeptic/atheist movement. As such, if she had an ounce of sense, she would've checked her factoids first. Particularly in the case of Galileo, considering his relevance to a movement in which Becky-Boos herself clearly wishes to be prominent*.

*pre-emptive strike against the compulsive contrarian in our midst**: why is it clear that Becky-Boos wishes to be prominent within the atheist/skeptical movement? I guess - lots of travel to conferences, lots of adoration from dweebs despite the 'rape-threats', lots of booze, lots of (dumb) people taking you seriously, lots of hobnobbing with celebs like, um, Kryten from Red Dwarf, and...well, let's face it, there's worse jobs about. As far as I'm concerned, she's already aptly demonstrated that she gets off on the attention she receives.

**Not that there's anything wrong with that of course, Steers. I kind of like your contrarianism. Not to the point of giving me the horn, I admit, but if it keeps the stink of groupthink away, I'm all for that.

[Tigzy]

Also, I've come to the conclusion that my dislike of Watson is probably more an emotional reaction to her, rather than being based on her past misdemeanors*. She could be a saint for what it's worth, but she would still fucking creep me out. Look, I just find her creepy. Really creepy. There's something cold behind her eyes and in her voice. Something fundamentally uncaring, wrong, icy, ruthless and strangely...dead. Were I religious, I might think her soul was not there. As it stands, I just feel there's something really weird and creepy about her, and she makes my skin crawl. If I should ever have the misfortune of being in her company, I shall make it clear to her that I would like her to stay away from me. And if she should take issue with that (possible, because I am a man hottie and she would probably be seeing me through beer goggles anyway) then I will let her know that she would be diminishing me as a person and making me feel threatened with her aura of creepiness. And then I'd make a Youtube video later, telling people, 'girls, don't do that.'

*<COMPULSIVE CONTRARIAN PLUGIN ACTIVATED>
Things like: operating a sock at the JREF forums, being accidentally given admin priviliges on the same site and deleting the accounts of - I believe - 2 people who she didn't like, for shits and giggles apparently. The Stef McGraw incident. The hundreds of 'rape-threats' she gets from 'atheists'...and so and so forth. It's all there in the phawrongula wiki, with citations, screencaps and suchlike.
<PLUGIN DISENGAGED>

[Tigzy]

It's just struck me that I do get the impression of a shop-window dummy that's come to life as regards Rebecca Watson. Empty inside; cold. Sterile. Plastic. Unfeeling. Yeah, she's basically an Auton.

Anyways, I think I've made my point.

[DownThunder]

And then I'd make a Youtube video later, telling people, 'girls, don't do that.'

Creepybittergirls, dont do that. Chillgirls apply within.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

FRANC you might like this from Phawrongula:

Ive seen only a little bit of him [Justicar], and already I think of him as a pencil-necked douche than any symbol of justice.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-460079

[Steersman]

Regarding Becky's 'Galileo executed by the Church' vid - I just love the fact that a moment before she utters those foolish words, she says, 'Christians, can you stop just saying stupid things like that?' :lol:

... but this is someone who wants to be taken seriously as a leading player in the skeptic/atheist movement. As such, if she had an ounce of sense, she would've checked her factoids first.

And one might say pretty much the same thing about franc’s “factoids” concerning Watson’s not correcting her video until “after a few weeks of laughter”. We all make mistakes, even Einstein who said that “the cosmological constant [was] the biggest blunder of his life.” The trick is to admit them, acknowledge them and try not to repeat them.

*pre-emptive strike against the compulsive contrarian in our midst .... **Not that there's anything wrong with that of course, Steers. I kind of like your contrarianism. Not to the point of giving me the horn, I admit, but if it keeps the stink of groupthink away, I'm all for that.

“Compulsive contrarian” :-) and “the stink of groupthink”, I both like. Remarkably easy, I think, for all of us or most of us to fall prey to that latter tendency to go along with the crowd; and as I have done myself , and more than a few times – “once bitten; twice shy” and all that ....

But I sort of suspect that you’re unlikely to be in that position, of receiving the horn. Those who are tend to be those who insist on dogma, those who have closed minds, those who refuse to recognize that a particular position is untenable or at least questionable. I think your skepticism about Sally Strange using a sock puppet to threaten herself with rape weighs against the latter alternative.

*<COMPULSIVE CONTRARIAN PLUGIN ACTIVATED>
Things like: operating a sock at the JREF forums, being accidentally given admin priviliges on the same site and deleting the accounts of - I believe - 2 people who she didn't like, for shits and giggles apparently. The Stef McGraw incident. The hundreds of 'rape-threats' she gets from 'atheists'...and so and so forth. It's all there in the phawrongula wiki, with citations, screencaps and suchlike.
<PLUGIN DISENGAGED>

Yes, quite agree and I have said that Rebecca “may well have more than a few sins to atone for” and I probably had something like that list of yours in mind when I made that comment. But it seems to me that making stuff up or making mountains out of molehills doesn’t reflect terribly well on those doing so. For instance, I recently saw on one of Watson’s videos some comment from someone trying to take her to task for having a bookshelf back of her – as if to say it was just a cynical prop to make her look more knowledgeable than she really was. Maybe the person saying that doesn’t have or read many books, but it sure looked like a rather silly comment and said more against them than against Watson.

But that type of thing serves only to discredit whatever other criticisms or arguments one might have. Maybe a rough approximation might be something popularized by Shakespeare: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” ....

[ERV]

Girl rant--
More Watson irony that hit me when I was in the shower-- Watson calls herself a feminist, but she doesnt give a rats ass about feminine culture or the benefits of feminine culture.

Going back to Watsons Twitter 'conversation' with Melody 'women who disagree with me are cock hungry sluts' Hensley regarding exfoliation: Watson has bad skin. Im not making fun of her-- I do too. Oily and acne prone, even at my age. If Watson could muster up some curiosity about the cosmetic industry, rather than just contempt, she would know that exfoliation is pretty much The Way a lot of folks manage their acne. Thats not just a marketing scheme. 'FANCY' things like a Clarisonic, chemical peels (I like Dr. Dennis Gross Extra Strength), and cleansers/moisturizers that include salicylic acid and retinol A. This isnt just a scam invented by The Evil Cosmetics Industry trying to con women. It works. And if you dont believe the over the counter stuff, you can get it from a physician*.

And I wouldnt say the beauty industry is trying to scam 'women'. Theyre trying to scam casual shoppers. Beauty junkies basically do their own experiments/peer review/etc. A few will try a product and post their reviews. If the product sucks, they tell the WORLD, and other beauty junkies dont waste their cash. You know, what other cultures do with new video games, new cell phones, restaurants.

Not only is Watson not a scientist, thus not qualified to critique the beauty industry, she also knows nothing about the beauty industry.

Thats not even mentioning all the benefits women have over men because of the beauty industry. I object to her blanket statements about a culture she doesnt understand or like.



* Exfoliation would also almost certainly help McCreights skin picking problem, but she hasnt matured beyond middle-school 'St. Ives Peach Scrub'. Surprise.

[JackRayner]

"Douches are these actually quite harmful products that women are encouraged to shoot up into themselves and basically fire-bomb their vaginas,"

Who encourages 'douche' use? Physicians dont. Advertisers dont (they wont even use the word in advertising). If anything, the use is cultural, and dependent on age. I mean I know of literally no one who has ever purchased or used a 'douche' product. No one. Certainly no one is 'encouraging' me to do it. Hell, in the generic 'womens' magazines like Cosmo and Shape and such, which are normally rife with woo, they not only do not encourage douche use, they actively tell women not to do it. Thats 'women are encouraged to shoot up blah blah'?

But its low hanging fruit, I suppose, and thats all Watson can reach.

Even before reaching adulthood, I already knew douching was a bad idea, and I'm a dude. I really doubt anything mainstream here in the west would still encourage vaginal douching.

I specify vaginal, because douches apparently have utility for the rectal region... :think: